Policy Success in an Age of Gridlock

The Lautenberg Act was passed in 2016, winning support across businesses and environmental groups. Does that portend more progressive actions? We show it as a function of the status quo changing due to regulatory efforts abroad, and in the United States, and from outside pressures on business. These processes may not be unique to toxics.

---

Since 1990, polarization hindered changing environmental policy statutorily. Yet, in mid-2016 the Lautenberg Act regulating toxics - chemicals employed in commerce - was passed, winning business and environmental support. What might explain this? Has the Trump administration undercut the law's effects? Does the Act's passage portend more progressive actions? We show that the Act was a function of the status quo changing due to regulatory efforts abroad and in the United States, and from outside pressures on business. These influences impacted implementation, with the Trump administration not targeting toxics regulation analogous to other programs. Further, the processes we observe for toxics may not be unique.